Jump to content

Bill Gates: Rich nations should shift entirely to synthetic beef


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

 I would say that its not a bad idea what Gates proposes but I would say that his motivation is off. In terms of water conservation, it would help if we did not have as much cattle grazing in the arid West. Also, a diet less concentrated on animal proteins and fats would not be a bad idea. However, climate change... a bit of a reach. 

The effect they have on climate change is debatable but they are a factor. The fact we are consuming the earth's renewable resources much faster than the planet can replace them isn't. The planet just wasn't designed to support 8 billion people enjoying our standard of living.

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, herbie said:

Real men don't eat quiche. Or tofu. Synthetic beef is an utter abomination.
He says gobbling down a hot dog, a Big Mac and a shake made with Elmers glue.

Even worse if it's cheaper and better for you and the environment, then it's obviously some nefarious plot to steal our precious body fluids.

I make a mean quiche, can even produce a decent French omelette. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

No I have lots more than just insults. I have "potty-mouth" too. And ya know...I prefer to make use of both, where appropriate. 

For instance...

You like to say what amounts to nothing quite often. Oh you like your little smilies and such...but basically you contribute fluff.

So do have a warm and fuzzy day...Fluffy...

No you don't. You are just an angry obnoxious person on the internet. I have no idea if it is intentional but that is how you come across.

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Aristides said:

No you don't. You are just an angry obnoxious person on the internet. I have no idea if it is intentional but that is how you come across.

To you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok, well good.  You found one. 

From WIKI:

  • American and New Zealand climate scientist Kevin Trenberth has published widely on climate change science and fought back against climate change misinformation for decades.[222] He describes in his memoirs his "close encounters with deniers and skeptics" [note that wiki goes along with the claim that they're mere 'deniers', and not "concerned climatologists with important opinions"] —with fellow meteorologists or climate change scientists.
  • These included Richard Lindzen ("he is quite beguiling but is criticized as “intellectually dishonest” by his peers"; Lindzen was a professor of meteorology at MIT and has been called a contrarian in relation to climate change and other issues.[223]), Roy Spencer (who has "repeatedly made errors that always resulted in lower temperature trends than were really present"), John Christy ("his decisions on climate work and statements appear to be heavily colored by his religion"), Roger Pielke Jr, Christopher Landsea, Pat Michaels ("long associated with the Cato Institute, he changed his bombastic tune gradually over time as climate change became more evident").[222]: 95 
  • Sherwood B. Idso is a natural scientist and is the president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. In 1982 he published his book Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe?, which said increases in CO2 would not warm the planet, but would fertilize crops and were "something to be encouraged and not suppressed".
  • William M. Gray was a climate scientist (emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University) who supported climate change denial: he agreed that global warming was taking place, but argued that humans were responsible for only a tiny portion of it and it was largely part of the Earth's natural cycle.[224][115][225]
  • In 1998, Frederick Seitz, an American physicist and former National Academy of Sciences president, wrote the Oregon Petition, a controversial document in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. The petition and accompanying "Research Review of Global Warming Evidence" claimed that "We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. [...] This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution".[160] In their book Merchants of Doubt, the authors write that Seitz and a group of other scientists fought the scientific evidence and spread confusion on many of the most important issues of our time, like the harmfulness of tobacco smoke, acid rains, CFCs, pesticides, and global warming.[124]: 25–29 

 

 

1. Yeah I know that's probably too long of a quote without an accompanying amount of substantial commentary, but it's their own words, and I'm not going to try to paraphrase all of that accurately. 

2. It's harder than you think to find opinions that go against the MSM's narratives MH. Go see for yourself. It's because Google is part of TNI, and TNI is a global disinformation network. When TNI toadies weigh in on things like BSL4 labs, laptops, etc, their "counterintuitive" narratives/apparently blatant BS eventually ends up being actual bullshit quite a bit. 

Edited by WestCanMan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

These guys like to pretend not to know why they're being treated like trolls. 

Meh...they have garbage for arguments so they have to "troll".

It would be wise to simply admit the truth of things but...that would cross the line for these empty vessels.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

From WIKI:

  • American and New Zealand climate scientist Kevin Trenberth has published widely on climate change science and fought back against climate change misinformation for decades.[222] He describes in his memoirs his "close encounters with deniers and skeptics" [note that wiki goes along with the claim that they're mere 'deniers', and not "concerned climatologists with important opinions"] —with fellow meteorologists or climate change scientists.
  • These included Richard Lindzen ("he is quite beguiling but is criticized as “intellectually dishonest” by his peers"; Lindzen was a professor of meteorology at MIT and has been called a contrarian in relation to climate change and other issues.[223]), Roy Spencer (who has "repeatedly made errors that always resulted in lower temperature trends than were really present"), John Christy ("his decisions on climate work and statements appear to be heavily colored by his religion"), Roger Pielke Jr, Christopher Landsea, Pat Michaels ("long associated with the Cato Institute, he changed his bombastic tune gradually over time as climate change became more evident").[222]: 95 
  • Sherwood B. Idso is a natural scientist and is the president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. In 1982 he published his book Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe?, which said increases in CO2 would not warm the planet, but would fertilize crops and were "something to be encouraged and not suppressed".
  • William M. Gray was a climate scientist (emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University) who supported climate change denial: he agreed that global warming was taking place, but argued that humans were responsible for only a tiny portion of it and it was largely part of the Earth's natural cycle.[224][115][225]
  • In 1998, Frederick Seitz, an American physicist and former National Academy of Sciences president, wrote the Oregon Petition, a controversial document in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. The petition and accompanying "Research Review of Global Warming Evidence" claimed that "We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. [...] This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution".[160] In their book Merchants of Doubt, the authors write that Seitz and a group of other scientists fought the scientific evidence and spread confusion on many of the most important issues of our time, like the harmfulness of tobacco smoke, acid rains, CFCs, pesticides, and global warming.[124]: 25–29 

 

 

1. Yeah I know that's probably too long of a quote without an accompanying amount of substantial commentary, but it's their own words, and I'm not going to try to paraphrase all of that accurately. 

2. It's harder than you think to find opinions that go against the MSM's narratives MH. Go see for yourself. It's because Google is part of TNI, and TNI is a global disinformation network. When TNI toadies weigh in on things like BSL4 labs, laptops, etc, their "counterintuitive" narratives/apparently blatant BS eventually ends up being actual bullshit quite a bit. 

I will look at these too, but remember that I asked specifically for papers from the last 20 years, because that's when there was a decided drop-off in support for the skeptical position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

 It's harder than you think to find opinions that go against the MSM's narratives MH. Go see for yourself. It's because Google is part of TNI, and TNI is a global disinformation network. 

An interesting idea, but we'll see.  This response is impressive because, in the surface at least, it seems like exactly what I constantly ask for on here - a real response.

Unfortunately, it's also a be-careful-what-you-wish-for type of thing, because I'm going to be taking a lot of time to look into it.  

Thanks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Aristides said:

All you have to contribute is personal insults and calling people liars. You don't believe in anything you don't want to, that's your concept of science.

And your concept of science is the left-wing agenda. 

What's so concerning is that "Science" has been overrun by woke activists and that's just one more thing we have to remedy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Aristides said:

The effect they have on climate change is debatable but they are a factor. The fact we are consuming the earth's renewable resources much faster than the planet can replace them isn't. The planet just wasn't designed to support 8 billion people enjoying our standard of living.

The bolded part is interesting phrasing. How far do you think the world is from living exactly like Western Civ's middle-class? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

The bolded part is interesting phrasing. How far do you think the world is from living exactly like Western Civ's middle-class? 

They all aspire to and why not?  What makes us so special and entitled to consume five times the earths resources?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Aristides said:

They all aspire to and why not?  What makes us so special and entitled to consume five times the earths resources?

I hope you've sold your home and are living in a tent. I hate to see that you're living ANY better than ANY part of this planet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Aristides said:

The planet just wasn't designed to support 8 billion people enjoying our standard of living.

That's one of the reasons why I think that western politicians like to suck up to islam. 

Within islam, the peon class that most of us actually belong to is extremely low-maintenance. They're happy to live with dirt floors, women to beat up, and Jews to hate.

They follow their leaders with blind devotion and don't think about themselves or even their families: just look at the people choosing to have their wife and kids remain in Gaza during a war... Gaza is so small that a woman of child-bearing/rearing age can walk the length of it in 2 days. They could all have been out of there by Oct 10th if they wanted. If they took a bit of time to sort things out they could have easily been gone by Oct 14th. That was two weeks before the last Hallowe'en... They were still there at Thanksgiving. Still there at Christmas. Still there at New Year's Eve. Still there on St Patrick's Day. Still there at Easter...

They've been there for over 7 months now. 210 days. Even if they only walked 10 miles a day, the ones from the far northern end of Gaza could have walked out 100 times now.

The Iranians and others who care so much about them that they're willing to burn alive and slice up 10M Israelis for them won't even help to save the life of one single child

They actually want children to stay there, living in squalor and fear for months on end, and then die as casualties of war, just to dredge up hate against Israel. They are literally sacrificing children to die just for propaganda. 

Trudeau dreams of that type of loyalty. The unvaxed would all be dead if his followers were that devoted to him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Deluge said:

I hope you've sold your home and are living in a tent. I hate to see that you're living ANY better than ANY part of this planet. 

The point is, the planet can't support 8 billion people living a western standard of living and you can't stop people from trying to achieve it. I'm not complaining, just recognizing reality. You think people like Gates are the enemy because they are trying to figure out ways we can improve the lot of everyone without destroying our home. You are fools because the future will get you whether you like it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Aristides said:

The point is, the planet can't support 8 billion people living a western standard of living and you can't stop people from trying to achieve it. I'm not complaining, just recognizing reality. You think people like Gates are the enemy because they are trying to figure out ways we can improve the lot of everyone without destroying our home. You are fools because the future will get you whether you like it or not.

This is pure BS. Who sold you this crap?

You're a fool for swallowing such nonsense.

What is it with you Libbies and your desire to adopt doomsday predictions.

Is fear the natural state for you sad sacks?

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Name a single climate scientist who has published a credible counter argument in the last 30 years.

This guy:  Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia

This guy:  Nir Shaviv - Wikipedia

This guy:  William Happer - Wikipedia

This guy:  Steven E. Koonin - Wikipedia

This guy:  Dr. Matthew M. WielickiDr. Matthew M. Wielicki's home page (matthewwielicki.com)

This guy:  Patrick Moore (consultant) - Wikipedia

This guy:  Ross McKitrick - Ross McKitrick Research Archive

This guy:  Willie Soon - Wikipedia

This guy:  Roy Spencer, PhD (drroyspencer.com)

This guy:  Henrik Svensmark - Wikipedia

This guy:  Who Is Tony Heller? | Real Climate Science

This guy (who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2022):  John Clauser - Wikipedia

 

Here's my prediction for where this post goes - MH will quickly google one or two of these people, find an article that calls them "climate deniers" or some such and immediately dismiss them without even hearing what they have to say.

MH, if you have an hour, most of these people express their views and reasonings in this video: 

(But I know it's YouTube, and you've already said you dismiss anybody who posts anything on YouTube.  You've made your mind up already and anything that points to a different analysis will not be something you check out.)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

the planet can't support 8 billion people living a western standard of living

#1 - not everyone wants to live a western standard of living.

#2 - the earth CAN support many more people, we just have to rein in greedy profiteering politicians and businessmen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

This guy:  Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia

This guy:  Nir Shaviv - Wikipedia

This guy:  William Happer - Wikipedia

This guy:  Steven E. Koonin - Wikipedia

This guy:  Dr. Matthew M. WielickiDr. Matthew M. Wielicki's home page (matthewwielicki.com)

This guy:  Patrick Moore (consultant) - Wikipedia

This guy:  Ross McKitrick - Ross McKitrick Research Archive

This guy:  Willie Soon - Wikipedia

This guy:  Roy Spencer, PhD (drroyspencer.com)

This guy:  Henrik Svensmark - Wikipedia

This guy:  Who Is Tony Heller? | Real Climate Science

This guy (who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2022):  John Clauser - Wikipedia

 

Here's my prediction for where this post goes - MH will quickly google one or two of these people, find an article that calls them "climate deniers" or some such and immediately dismiss them without even hearing what they have to say.

MH, if you have an hour, most of these people express their views and reasonings in this video: 

(But I know it's YouTube, and you've already said you dismiss anybody who posts anything on YouTube.  You've made your mind up already and anything that points to a different analysis will not be something you check out.)

 

I'm familiar with some of these, yes. Some of them are not climate scientists, others published prior to 20 years ago. I already told West can that I would be looking into it.

No, Goddess, I will give them their due but I already addressed some of these in the past.  

Edited by Michael Hardner
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Some of them are not climate scientists

The video kind of explains why relying only on "climate scientists" is a bit narrow. Climate takes in much more - geology, biology, meteorology, physics, etc.  Hearing from experts in all these fields gives a more rounded education. That's just my opinion.

I'm not any kind of climate scientist, but wanted to get educated on it, so I did watch quite a few YouTubes from both sides of the issue.  I like the YouTubes because they sometimes break it down better into layman's terms and understanding quite well.

Edited by Goddess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Aristides said:

The effect they have on climate change is debatable but they are a factor. The fact we are consuming the earth's renewable resources much faster than the planet can replace them isn't. The planet just wasn't designed to support 8 billion people enjoying our standard of living.

I agree that there is no way that all 8 billion people can live the middle class American standard of living. Only so many natural resources. Once all of it has been mined and processed... what's next? As for this topic, less beef consumption and therefore less beef production would help the mostly arid west. Now.. would some be upset at their cowboy lifestyle becoming increasingly rare? yes. You can already see it in Eastern Oregon, Nevada, and Idaho. Places that were once basically ranch towns have become suburbs or have shrunk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

The video kind of explains why relying only on "climate scientists" is a bit narrow. Climate takes in much more - geology, biology, meteorology, physics, etc.  Hearing from experts in all these fields gives a more rounded education. That's just my opinion.

I'm not any kind of climate scientist, but wanted to get educated on it, so I did watch quite a few YouTubes from both sides of the issue.  I like the YouTubes because they sometimes break it down better into layman's terms and understanding quite well.

The issue is whether the YouTube is itself objective or not. If you through arrive at a topic with absolutely no knowledge. It's pretty easy to get hoodwinked. 

 

Bias and deception happens, but you also have to take into account that there's oversight in most processes in an open society. Including academia, scientific research, etc.

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

 

 

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/7/2024 at 4:49 AM, Nationalist said:

While I'll admit Gates is not stupid...I will admit he's dangerous.

This push to get people to accept fake meat, eat bugs, forsake farming because of cow farts...is Gawd Damn insidious.  The bast@rd is busily buying up all the land...not already bought by the Chinese. 

This greenie agenda is evil.!

Just think that when the WEF Marxist globalists like Gates and the Swabster finally get their way one day, we will all be eating bugs, own nothing and be happy, and be vaccinated forever. We will be forced to live and be stuck in 15 minute cities and not be allowed to travel anywhere because we will not be allowed to as we will have no money to do so. 2030 is getting closer. 

In the meantime, the WEF globalists will be eating steaks every night, own the whole bloody world, and it is for sure that they will never be vaccinated and will not be living in 15 minute cities. Ilk like Gates to hell is buying up all the land that he can get his globalist stinking hands on so as not to be able to grow any decent food to eat on those lands anymore. Those lands will probably be starting up new bug farms so that you and me can enjoy eating a cockroach sandwich with a bowl of slimy worm soup one day. Hey, we never know, eh? 😁

The conspiracy to enslave humanity by these Marxist WEF globalist scum bags is for real, but yet, there will be many buffoons here who will say that this is all just conspiracy nonsense. We must now all wait and see what those scumbag globalists have in store for us one day. Can't wait. 🤢

 

Edited by taxme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

 Judith Curry. 

Ok so I started my research and only about ten minutes in, I have to stop.

Indeed I remembered her after reading.  She's concerned about the rhetoric and alarmism, and as an accredited scientist she is to be believed.

But I got confused because my challenge was specifically:

"Name a single climate scientist who has published a credible counter argument in the last 30 years. Not a YouTube, or a blog post... Not an oil expert, weather man, or geologist...""

Her Wiki summary says:

"In the 2010 profile, she accused the IPCC of "corruption" and said she no longer had confidence in the process. She agreed that the Earth is warming, largely due to human-generated greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic. She said that the IPCC was distorting the science and scientists were not dealing adequately with uncertainties.["

She's not censored, but also she doesn't seem to meet the criteria I mentioned.  If you support her, then you're supporting a scientist who believes in human-caused climate change.

So I don't want to go any further until you clarify whether you're fully aligned with her or not. I will continue with the other Post. 

 

Please note I am proceeding respectfully and ask you to do the same. Given the amount of work this is going to take me, I'm not interested in deep dives that take a long time only to have you call me a dunderhead at the end of it all...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...